Fidelity Research FR64s Headshell dilemma

Raul, I mentioned in my long post that although I do own the RS Labs tonearm, I don't use it much, for the other reasons cited.  It is "tricky" to use, has no cueing device, and places the cartridge in jeopardy, because the unipivot bearing does not capture the arm wand in place. If you jostle the body of the tonearm, the whole arm wand is apt to fall off its pivot and could destroy the cartridge.  The Ortofon MC7500 that I bought from you never sounded better than when mounted in the RS Labs, on the other hand.  I just didn't have the guts to use it that way long term.  Because I do like the sonics of the RS Labs, I was attracted to the Viv Float, a more sensible alternative. However, the Viv is very expensive, $6K-ish I think in the USA.  You can buy one in Tokyo for more like $3500, but that is still not "cheap".  I agonized over a purchase last time I was in Tokyo but did not pull the trigger. And the Viv has some other quirks that one would need to evaluate, like that oil bath bearing assembly. No, you are correct, underhung tonearms are not going to take over the world.  But if someone would just make one that is less gimmicky than either the RS Labs or the Viv, I think it would sell if the seller would accurately describe its characteristics to buyers.  The Yamaha tonearm, so far as I know, is only available together with their new turntable.  Now we are far away from a discussion of headshells.  Sorry to the OP.

rauliruegas

Dear @dover @cleeds @lewm : Dover/Cleeds I see that both of you don’t get it:" when the 99.99% of the pivoted vintage and today tonearms are/were designed with that offset angle and obviously overhang figure. "" That’s why is useless till you can convince each single tonearm manufacturer ... that all are wrong and that no one will buy their tonearms till they manufacture the underhung ones.

We don’t need to convince anyone of anything in order to discuss underhung arms here. Nor is this a matter of right or wrong - it’s a question of difference.

I´m not interested to participate in a dialogue on something that is futile because the audio industry will not makes changes about only because 6 audiophiles commented in " scientific " way ...

Then stop participating, Raul and - more importantly - please try to obstruct others from participating.

As an aside, I’ve always used conventional pivoted arms, and have never had an underhung arm or any of the various types of tangential arms. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t worthy of discussion.

No pivoted arm can reproduce the soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker

That’s quite a claim! What arms have you used to test that belief? In particular, I’d be interested in which 12-inch arms you’ve tried.

It’s not a claim, it is science. Less tracking error means there are less phase errors, less phase errors result in a more accurate reproduction of harmonics and more accurate phase and time, resulting in a more accurate and transparent soundstage.

With regard to your question on which arms I've owned, I currently own the following arms -
Eminent Technology ET2 {linear - modded extensively ), Fidelity Research FR64s, Naim Aro ( unipivot ), Dynavector 501 ( rebuilt to Baerwald specification ), SME 3012

12" Arms I have owned or set up and listened to extensively with a wide range of cartridges include SME V12, Moerch DP8 12" & SME 3012.

Similarly, I have also owned or set up on numerous occasions -
Kuzma 4Point11, Sumiko MDC800, Sumiko FT3, Syrinx PU3, Syrinx PU2, Helius Omega, Helius Cyalene, Well Tempered, Alphason HR100S, Zeta, Odyssey, Mayware, JH Reproducers, Hadcock 228, Goldmund T3 linear, Linn Ittok, Linn Ekos, Decca unipivot, Grace 707/747, to name a few. There are many others I’ve forgotten.

... for example with choral music recorded in a church environment I can clearly hear the full extent of the room, and its aural impact.

I can do that with a pivoted arm.

No you can't, as long as there is tracking error your soundstage reproduction is compromised for the abovementioned reasons.

Dover, You raise a question about which I have long wondered.  We discuss the "grave" consequences of tracking angle error as if they are factual, which is to say verified by actual experiments.  The claims for a correlation with distortion and phase anomalies make teleological sense, but do you know of any actual studies that have been done to correlate tracking angle error with those undesirable consequences?  That goes back to my mentioning the need for an LP encoding a single frequency from start to finish, so one could observe the effects of TAE directly.

No pivoted arm can reproduce the soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker

That’s quite a claim! What arms have you used to test that belief? In particular, I’d be interested in which 12-inch arms you’ve tried.

It’s not a claim, it is science. Less tracking error means there are less phase errors, less phase errors result in a more accurate reproduction of harmonics and more accurate phase and time, resulting in a more accurate and transparent soundstage.

You don’t say. And yet....

Every pivoted arm as it swings across a record has two points at which it is perfectly tangential. If the above is true then the "soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker" would be achieved, even if only at those two points.

Every record, as its played the sound stage will become more and more transparent and accurate, then less and less, then more and more again. If its such a big important difference then everyone would notice. No one would need to be told about it.

Is that the case? Not at all. In fact it seems the only people talking about this at all are promoting linear tracking arms as being so great - at solving this problem no one else cares or even knows about.

Therefore, the statement "No pivoted arm can reproduce the soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker" is what scientists and logicians refer to as, and pardon the technical language, BS.